Regarding the CDT article, "Link with Scouts draws fire" (May 14), how can a Boy Scout be inclined to homosexuality or be an atheist? A Scout takes an oath to be "morally straight" and to "do my duty to God," which makes the concept of homosexual or atheistic scouts oxymoronic.

To its credit, the concept of right and wrong still has a place in the Scouts. And nothing could be more wrong, in the view of the Scout oath, than allowing individuals who are publicly proud that they are homosexually inclined and consider sodomy a virtue, or who mock God by denying His existence, to be affiliated with the Scouts in any way. Such actions would be a bastardization of that oath.

Moreover, are we obliged to put our Scouts at risk because a radical minority, hell-bent on living self-destructive lifestyles, won't be satisfied until they are confirmed in their vice? Are we obliged to do so until their demand for acceptance of their behavior by all aspects of society, including the religious community, is met under force of law, so as to shut up or lock up the opposition that they are quick to demonize for lack of rational arguments to back up their claims?

If there is no connection between pedophilia and homosexuality, why are articles promoting the former showing up repeatedly in homosexual journals? Why is there a National Man/Boy Love Association whose homosexual connections are immediately obvious by their name and through their literature?

Those who are interested in legalizing sexual relations between adults and children want to change the parameters of the discussion from the absolutist moral position to the relative position that it can sometimes be beneficial. A controversial article in an American Psychological Association Bulletin, which promoted child sexual abuse under the euphemism intergenerational intimacy, an article that was subsequently refuted by the head of the APA after the pressure of near unanimous Congressional condemnation, furthered exactly this position.

The very real agenda of such advocates was shown on Fox's O'Reilly news show of August 1, 2001, when a representative from the Massachusetts gay and lesbian caucus argued that "don't ask, don't tell" also meant that the scouts can't talk about heterosexual relationships leading to marriage, and their leaders couldn't wear wedding rings, implying that somehow, such talk would offend the homosexual membership. In short, what he was advocating was that "don't ask, don't tell" not only apply to the unnatural acts of homosexuals that have been historically condemned by the vast majority of faith traditions, but also to natural marriage acts that aren't equally condemned. That fact offends homosexuals because "marriage" is not reserved for them; no matter that the concept of "homosexual marriage" is nonsensical since there is this slight problem with propagation of the species, given one of the primary definitions of marriage.

The Scout Handbook dealing with sexual responsibility (Chapter 14, pp. 376-378) would have to be rewritten. For example, what about the section where the Scouts are told that "sex should take place only between people who are married to each other," with abstinence until marriage being the priority concern in order to "give a child a close, loving family in which to grow"? The clear inference is that procreation is a function of "natural" monogamous marriage with a person of the opposite sex.

What about the section that deals with a Scout's responsibility to himself where he's told that "an understanding of 'wholesome' sexual behavior can bring lifelong happiness, with irresponsibility or ignorance causing a lifetime of regret?" What could be more irresponsible than the de facto promotion of homosexuality by such misguided policies as "don't ask, don't tell," given the evidence coming from many professional sources, including the Center for Disease Control that homosexual behavior is the most risky because of the unnatural acts involved? [See most recent HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report statistics for 2001.]

These are questions from responsible parents who recognize that the Boy Scouts put a premium on telling the truth. What we're witnessing is an attempt to subvert the very moral foundation of the Boy Scouts of America through homosexual agitprop.

Accordingly, how can parents, who out of course of fulfilling their responsibilities to their children by justly discriminating between right and wrong behavior, feel comfortable with a policy that would allow homosexuals into scouting.

Similarly, how can they feel comfortable with allowing admission into the Boy Scouts atheists, a group that runs counter to a primary tenet of the Scout oath? Oaths used to mean something before political correctness was allowed to run amok.

Clearly one cannot mock that which does not exist, therefore the atheist that denies the existence of "god" does so with the intention of making a truthful statement, and not with the hypocritical intention of mockery. The author seems confused about what words mean and how they should be applied. Possibly the intent is deliberate and the author is mocking those that dare disagree with him by refusing to partake of his mythology?

"What we're witnessing is an attempt to subvert the very moral foundation of the Boy Scouts of America through homosexual agitprop."

This is the foundation of the homosexual agenda. Homosexuality is a perversion of something good. Homosexuality didn't work for the Greek Empire, and it won't work for our culture. Homosexuals want the heterosexual culture to not be the norm, to be an outcast culture. They want the return of the old Greek culture. It must not happen. We cannot allow homosexuals to have access to our children as a breeding ground for the implementation of their agenda.

"mythology"? The Story of God is ultimately based on the presumption that Genesis is true. I won't bother with the litearlness of the Adam and Eve fable, but the fact of the matter is that the Big Flood never happened. Now, when a physically demonstrable prediction of a theory is proved false, no logical reason exists to presume that other claims contained in that theory, especially those not subject to validation, are true.

Therefore, since the Noah tale is a lie, there's no reason to accept virgin births, healing miracles, withered fig trees, water freesurface walking, or any other unverifiable claim in that book. One is expected to take these things on "faith", but that's absurd when the checkable items are demonstrated to be false.

Hence, the book is nothing more than mythology. A collection of tales with hypothectical and tenous factual basis intended to explain natural events, indoctrinate the young, and otherwise channel thought and behavior, without regards to the objective reality of the tale.

On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty To God and my county To help other people at all times To keep myself physically strong, metally awake and morally straight Morally straight excludes gays...

I can only tell my story. Though I was mostly being a wise guy. Kids join the Boy Scouts because their friends do, not because it excludes atheists. "Agnostic" is actually the proper term, since atheism also requires faith in something unknowable, though I guess we'd be excluded too.

You're right when you say, "not with the hypocritical intention of mockery", since being hypocritical actually engenders some departure from a belief in, or adherence to some standard.

In fact, one who might conventially be called a hypocrite usually doesn't really believe in anything...except the adrenaline rush perhaps, that might issue from cavalierly branding someone else's heartfelt beliefs "mythology".

Back in the 13th century, St. Anshelm, (Proslogium), showed just how logically impossible it is to deny God's existence when he proved the statement of Psalms that "the fool says in his heart, there is no God".

Refusing to partake in a belief of God does not mean that God does not exist, it just shows the silliness of the unbeliver.

Now if someone wants to refuse to partake in the belief in God, they should also choose not to partake in the BSA where God is still reverently honored.

Clearly one cannot mock that which does not exist, therefore the atheist that denies the existence of "god" does so with the intention of making a truthful statement, and not with the hypocritical intention of mockery

Even more clear is the fact that atheists can not know whether God or a Creator, whichevr you prefer, exists. Therefore, the atheist does not make a truthful statement when he denies the existence of God, he instead offers a hubris filled opinion. Which is fine, we're all entilted to an opinion.

But my question here is, do you have a problem with private organizations excluding atheists?

The reason homosexuals want to be involved in the boy scouts can be summed up in one word-RECRUITMENT!

HOMOSEXUALS & THE YOUNG Society has agreed that ethnic status and special protections should not be awarded to child molesters. Child molestation is regarded in every state as a criminal offense. Yet it is common knowledge that homosexuals are notorious practitioners of sex with minors. The Gay Report (Summit Books, 1979, p. 275), a survey of homosexual attitudes and behavior by Jay and Young, two homosexual researchers, revealed that 73% of homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys 16 years of age or younger.

J.C. Coleman, in Abnormal Psychology and Modern Life (1964) lists early homosexual experience as the main cause of homosexuality. He found that more than 50% of adult homosexuals had been seduced by older homosexuals before the age of 14.

In a national random survey of 4,340 adults, 96% of heterosexual males and 97% of normal females reported that their first sexual experience was heterosexual. 85% of homosexuals and 29% of lesbians reported their first sexual experience as bisexual or homosexual (Nebraska Medical Journal, August, 1985).

A survey in the British journal of Sexual Medicine (April 1987) reported the mean age of homosexuals first sexual encounters with other males as 15 years and one month. Crime statistics reveal that about 31% of children younger than 13 who claim to have been molested by men were homosexually assaulted ("Child Molestation and Homosexuality," Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality, 1987. See also Psychological Reports, 1986, #58, pp. 327 - 337, which reveals that homosexuals, [while representing perhaps 2% of the population] perpetrate more than one third of all reported child molestations.)

Boy Scouts Under Constant Attack

A nationwide investigation of child molestation in the Boy Scouts of America (see Insight magazine, June 17, 1991) reported 1,151 complaints by Boy Scouts of abuse by Scout leaders in the past 19 years, in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. This makes, the article stated, "sex abuse more common in Scouting than accidental deaths and serious injuries ... In that time, at least 416 men have been arrested or banned from Scouting for molesting boys in their care." The Boy Scouts have spent literally millions of dollars in litigation related to this abuse.

Knowing that between one fourth and one third of child molestations involve man - boy contact, homosexual extremists are now conveniently attempting to claim that male molesters of boys should not be considered homosexuals. However, a recent Canadian study of male child molesters revealed the following: (1) 30% of the offenders studied admitted to having engaged in homosexual acts with adults; and (2) 91% of molesters of non - familial boys admitted to no lifetime sexual contact other than homosexual - i.e.., their sexual orientation was clearly homosexual (Marshall, W.L., et. al., "Early onset and deviant sexuality in child molesters," Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1991,6,323 - 336).

Among homosexual activists themselves, a heated debate rages over whether the homosexual community should include among their ranks homosexuals who have sex with the young. In a typical editorial favoring inclusion that appeared recently in the homosexual newspaper Bay Area Reporter (Feb 13, 1992, p. 6), one Bradley Rose said:

..... What is a pedophile? A pedophile is not a rapist or a murderer, or a devil, but a person who loves ... As a gay child, I would have welcomed sexual relations with males, of adult age as well as my own ...

Gay liberation is stuck in backwaters as long as gay children are denied their sexuality and as long as parents are allowed to push their gay children into the roles of hetero adults ... Most of the heteros just don't know how to give gay affirming support to their children (the homosexual ones as well as the non - gay ones). Let's give them a hand.

Similarly, support for "gay men who love boys" is found in an editorial in the San Francisco Sentinel, another homosexual newspaper. In fact the editorial states that "the love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality" ("No Place for Homo Homophobia," March 26,1992)

27
posted on 06/10/2003 3:01:01 PM PDT
by GrandMoM
("Vengeance is Mine , I will repay," says the Lord.)

Thank you for filling the role of the stereotypical patronizing atheist. Your momma must be so proud.

The fact that this passes for an intelligent response in your mind, is an indication of the paucity of thinking that goes into your position. Isn't faith great? You never have to worry your poor old brain with the drudgery of thought.

28
posted on 06/10/2003 3:06:26 PM PDT
by gcruse
(Superstition is a mind in chains.)

Perhaps you have missed the essential point. To the Left, that oath, itself, is as offensive as the conduct towards which it is supposed to inspire. Our God fearing--honoring--heritage, culture and the traditional society that grew out of them, are the real targets. To the Left, all else must yield to their agenda. This is about divorcing mankind from reality & tradition, at every level. It never did having anything to do with promoting tolerance.

This is about divorcing mankind from reality & tradition, at every level. It never did having anything to do with promoting tolerance.

Very true. Another way to say kind of the same thing is that their envy - ultimately, of the Supreme Being - leads them to want to destroy the natural order, of which He is the author. Since the hedonist/leftist/secularists cannot create anything, they try to destroy. And even if - a huge if - they managed to acheive their goals, by their success civilization would be destroyed.

They are destroyers of virture, of reason, of holiness, of individual and social peace. But they cannot destroy God or His plans.

If by recruitment you mean that homosexuals hope to foster an environment in which gay children can "come out" without fear of reprisals, I would agree with you. If you mean by recruitment that homosexuals want to have sex with children, I would disagree. There is probably an small minority of homos who actively seek out children. But then homos are already a small minority.

BTW, I am opposed to both methods of "recruitment."

The disinformation exists in wherein homosexual activists would have us believe that there are countless children out there who are just waiting to come out. That's a load of you-know-what.

Possibly the intent is deliberate and the author is mocking those that dare disagree with him by refusing to partake of his mythology?

Probably the author knows his own opinion and the opinion of most of his readers.

Those of us who know G-d understand that the fact of G-d's existence is obvious to all. We also recognize that some want to deny G-d's existence because they understand what it would mean to accept someone greater than they could ever be. Human pride stands in the way.

But you are correct that G-d is not mocked when you deny his existence.

You do, however, name yourself a fool.

Shalom.

39
posted on 06/11/2003 6:39:09 AM PDT
by ArGee
(I did not come through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a serving-man... - Gandalf)

Clearly one can mock that which exists that one does not believe exists.

One of the greatest unbelievers of them all, Bertrand Russell, admitted that rigorous logic would not permit him to deny God's existence as a proveable fact. Agnosticism was as far as careful thought would permit him to go.

At any rate, the Boy Scouts is founded on an implicit belief in God. To contend one should be allowed to participate while expressly rejecting the existence of God is PC illogic taken to extremes.

Sorry. I'm not going to dig into geologic history and "prove" the Imaginary Flood never happened. The facts are that at no time in the earth's history, and especially at no time in the history of mankind, was this planet ever 100% inundated with water. If you're so ignorant of geology that you don't realize the truth of this statement, it's beyond my ability to "prove" it to you.

How about you providing compelling physical evidence that the earth was completely flooded, 100%, past the top of Everest, all at the same time? Oh, you can't. I'm sorry, but we all know there's not one single continuous alluvial layer blanketing the entire planet. Well, all of us but you.

Also, in addition to being ignorant of the history of the ground under your feet, you're ignorant of the rules of logic, since everyone also knows that one cannot "prove" a negative. When some posits that something did not occur, the proper refutation is to provide evidence to the contrary. After all, you said the Imaginary Flood happened. Where's your proof? A magic book? Don't make us laugh.

One of the greatest unbelievers of them all, Bertrand Russell, admitted that rigorous logic would not permit him to deny God's existence as a proveable fact.

No. That's why one puts it forward as a disprovable theory. A theory has not yet been shown to be false. All that is needed to refute this simple statement:

There is no God

is to drag a God out from under whatever rock She might be hiding under and prove It exists. Bertrand Russell was merely stating the obvious, that you cannot prove a negative.

As for the rest, I never once said that atheists should be permitted to join the Boy Scouts. Last time I checked, the BSA was a private organization, with the freedom to set it's own rules of membership as it pleased. Atheists shouldn't whine about not being able to go camping or whatever since they're not willing to lie to join up. If the atheists have the equal freedom to create their own equivalent Boy Scouts Without God if they want, no one is stopping them.

I agree fully with those that support the Boy Scouts exclusionary stance. It's no one's business but theirs.

Actually, there is a lot of evidence that the Big Flood did, indeed happen. Additionally, I have been told that there are many flood stories, not just the one in Genesis.

No. There is plenty of evidence of floods throughout history. There is no evidence of a global deluge. And of course there are many stories of mythological floods. Moses allegedly wrote the Pentateuch, but however was responsible simply lifted the Mesopotamian tale of Gilgamesh and altered it to suit his purposes. As serious a case of copyright infringement and plagiarism as any in history.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.